|3.||If it is, then is one primary feature of all discourse or communicating its ontological dynamic, its function as world defining or identity negotiating?|
|4.||Moreover, if the human world is co-constructed discursively, is tensionality one of its primary characteristics? Was Heidegger ( 1972) right that Being is always both emerging-and-receding? Are human realities, as Buber might have put it, fundamentally between, affected by the other's active shaping? Is all utterance, as Volosinov argued, response? Might we, therefore, conclude, as Godzich ( 1994) argues (following Nietzsche), that "to speak is to construct, to falsify, and therefore to lie, and to tell the truth" (p. 139)?|
|5.||What implications emerge from this tensional, communicative ontology? Are all understandings of communication (theories, research findings) incomplete, and does each conceal even as it reveals? If so, does this constitute a profound justification for critical theorizing and for what some critical theorists call deconstruction ( Derrida, 1978; Lyotard, 1988)?|
|6.||Less radically, must students of relationships-understood-ontologically acknowledge in their thinking, research designs, and theorizing that relationship cannot be adequately comprehended from within a subject-object paradigm and that hypostatizing this phenomenon distorts it, because it is event more than structure or object? Are communication studies most appropriately studies of this event?|
Readers may derive additional questions from these narratives. Minimally, however, it should be clear that many of the intellectual forebears of both those who contributed to and those who will read this volume have attempted to study relationships relationally and that we can be informed by their efforts.